Paradine v Jane (1647) Aleyn 26, 27

Key point

  • This case illustrates that before the doctrine of frustration was developed, there was no escape from contract for impossibility of performance and promises were absolutely binding


  • The landlord (C) claimed rent from D lessee
  • D argued that since he had been evicted from the land by Prince Rupert during the English Civil War, he should not be liable for rent

Held (King’s Bench)

  • D was liable for rent
  • Party to contract remains liable despite any supervening event because he might have provided against it in his contract